ITAT Ranchi Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 148 is governed by Section 149 of the Act, which specifies the period for issuance, not signing. Since the notice was issued on 01.04.2021, it was beyond the permissible time limit.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. It was observed that the WhatsApp messages were not supported by any other documentary evidence and the transactions were not found in the assessee's WhatsApp, but in that of her son, who is an independent assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond a reasonable period of limitation, citing previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the transactions were duly reflected in the company's books and examined by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT's order was considered unnecessary.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond a reasonable period of limitation, following established jurisprudence. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not discharged its duty to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loan. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order after considering all submitted details and examining necessary documents and evidences.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond a reasonable period of limitation, following established jurisprudence. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order despite the appellant not substantiating their grounds of appeal, due to non-compliance with notices. However, considering that tax laws are welfare legislation and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Kolkata Bench in Dipak Parui vs JCIT, held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, effective from 01/04/2015, restricts disallowance on non-deduction of TDS to 30% of the amount. Therefore, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was restricted to 30% of ₹3,00,000/-, amounting to ₹90,000/-. The ground related to diesel expenses was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the transactions were duly reflected in the company's books and examined by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT's order was considered unnecessary.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the transactions were duly reflected in the company's books and examined by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT's order was considered unnecessary.

The Tribunal observed that the deposit of ₹14.95 lacs was not related to SBN notes but were cash deposits from sale proceeds and collections from debtors. The assessee's cash-in-hand extract supported adequate funds for the deposit. The Tribunal found that the source of the deposit was explained.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- as unexplained income was justified. The Tribunal noted that while Shri Sunil Kumar Jha claimed his income source was agricultural income and selling paddy and wheat in cash, the land sales occurred between 2010 and 2016. The certificate stated cash gifts were made until September 2016 from land sale proceeds and agricultural income. However, the Tribunal observed that land worth Rs. 12,00,000/- was sold in December 2016, after the last alleged cash gift in September 2016, meaning this amount was not available for gifting. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no proof of how Shri Sunil Kumar Jha held the cash from 2013 to 2016, nor how the assessee held the cash from January to September 2016. Transactions with government agencies for paddy were in 2012, and no evidence of cash withdrawal from banks for the gifts was produced. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that merely providing the brother's name and a certificate was insufficient substantiation. The case law relied upon by the assessee was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and confirmed the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's failure to represent itself before the Ld. CIT(E) was on account of ignorance. Consequently, the issues raised in both appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the denial of registration u/s. 12A and recognition u/s. 80G, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses due to genuine ignorance, if explained with reasonable cause, can lead to condonation of delay and restoration of issues for proper adjudication, provided the assessee assures future compliance and is granted a fair hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's failure to represent itself before the Ld. CIT(E) was on account of ignorance. Consequently, the issues raised in both appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the denial of registration u/s. 12A and recognition u/s. 80G, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses due to genuine ignorance, if explained with reasonable cause, can lead to condonation of delay and restoration of issues for proper adjudication, provided the assessee assures future compliance and is granted a fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that the mistake in mentioning the assessment year constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-representation.

The Tribunal held that both under-loading charges and demurrage charges are not penal in nature but are incurred as a consequence of commercial agreements and for the purpose of business. Therefore, they are allowable as business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were made in the firm's bank account, and therefore, the partner cannot be held responsible for explaining these deposits. Any addition should be made in the hands of the firm, not the partner. The addition made in the assessee's name was unjustified.

The Tribunal observed that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specifically mention the grounds for penalty, failing to strike off inapplicable portions. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal held that such a defective notice vitiates the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that for subsequent Assessment Years (2015-16 onwards), the revenue accepted the claim for depreciation at 10% by treating the 'Project Road' as a building. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 10%.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal but condoned it in the interest of natural justice, recognizing the issues caused by management changes and lack of awareness. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of ₹10,000/- on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that both under-loading charges and demurrage charges are not penal in nature but are incurred as a consequence of commercial agreements and for the purpose of business. Therefore, they are allowable as business expenditure.

The Tribunal noted that for subsequent Assessment Years (2015-16 onwards), the revenue accepted the claim for depreciation at 10% by treating the 'Project Road' as a building. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 10%.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was defective because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inapplicable portions were not struck off. This defect vitiates the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to represent its case properly before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication with adequate opportunities for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent its case before the CIT(A) and Form Nos. 27C were not produced before the AO. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the AO for readjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent its case before the CIT(A) and Form Nos. 27C were not produced before the AO. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the AO for readjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent its case before the CIT(A) and Form Nos. 27C were not produced before the AO. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the AO for readjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.